[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E540-E541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE BORDER IMPROVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 24, 1999

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress, I introduced 
legislation to amend section 110 of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 
that mandated an automated entry-exit border control system by October 
1, 1998. My bill, H.R. 2955, not only sought to correct the problems at 
the northern and southern borders that would have been created by hasty 
implementation of section 110, but also took a deliberate approach to 
analyzing the problem and determining the best solutions.
  Today, I am reintroducing an updated version of that bill for 
consideration during the 106th Congress. Much has happened since last 
session's introduction of H.R. 2955, but the need for this legislation 
has not waned. My intent in introducing this bill is not only to 
correct a flaw, but to reignite debate and discussion as we work toward 
a final resolution of this critical problem. The response and 
enthusiastic support for this effort last year--culminating in delay of 
section 110's implementation until March 2001--demonstrates 
unmistakably that Congress views this as a serious problem that needs a 
permanent fix. My bill will accomplish that.
  First, the bill would allow an entry-exit system to be implemented 
only at airports. INS has created an automated system now in use at 
several airports. But, the expense and lengthy set-up phase for that 
system highlighted the need to delay the deadline for implementation at 
other airports to give the Attorney General enough time to effectively 
integrate the system at every airport where aliens enter the United 
States. Further, it specifically excludes land borders or sea ports 
from the system created by section 110. In effect, it repeals section 
110 with respect to land borders and sea ports. Finally, it contains an 
exception for any alien for whom documentation requirements at airports 
have been waived under the Immigration and Nationality Act, primarily 
Canadians.
  Second, the bill requires the Attorney General to submit a report to 
Congress one year after enactment on the difficulties of developing and 
implementing an automated entry-exit control system as presently 
prescribed in section 110, including arrivals and departures at land 
borders and sea ports. The study must assess the total cost and 
practical feasibility of various means of operating such an entry-exit 
system.
  Third, the bill increases the number of INS border inspectors in each 
fiscal year, 2000-2002, by not less than 300 full-time persons each 
year. These new INS inspectors must be equally assigned to the northern 
and southern borders. Similarly, Customs inspectors must also be 
increased at the land borders by not less than 150 full-time persons in 
each fiscal year, 2000-2002, and the Customs inspectors in each year 
must be evenly assigned to the northern and southern borders.
  Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Reform Act mandated that an 
automated entry-exit system be established that would allow INS 
officers to match the entrance date with exit dates of legally admitted 
aliens. Congress included this section at the last minute during the 
House-Senate conference with the intent of solving the problem of 
overstaying visa holders--aliens who enter the United States legally 
but overstay their allotted time. Because the U.S. does not have a 
departure management system to track who leaves the United States, a 
new entry-exit system was thought to be the best vehicle to solve the 
problem.
  In the rush to complete the bill before the end of the fiscal year on 
September 30, 1996, conferees did not have time to give this provision 
the scrutiny it deserves. Any attempt to install a documentation system 
will bring intolerable chaos and congestion to a system already 
strained.
  As representative of the 29th district of New York, I have a 
particular interest in the problem of delays and congestion at our 
northern border crossings. My district, which includes Buffalo and 
Niagara Falls, has more crossings than any other district along the 
border. In a relatively small area, we boast four highway bridges and 
two railroad bridges. I know from personal experience the problems that 
delays and congestion can cause at these crossings.
  Last year, more than 116 million people entered the United States by 
land from Canada. Of these, more than 76 million were Canadian 
nationals or United States permanent residents. And more than $1 
billion in goods and services trade crossed our border daily. To 
implement section 110 as it now stands would not only impede this 
traffic flow, it would contravene the United States-Canada Shared 
Border Accord which was intended to facilitate increased crossings of 
people and goods between our two countries.

[[Page E541]]

  Moreover, it is important to recognize the sense of borderless 
community that those living on the United States and Canadian sides of 
the border experience on a daily basis. Friends, family, and business 
associates travel easily, indeed seamlessly, across this invisible 
border to shop, enjoy theater and restaurants, athletic events, and 
other recreational opportunities. And, during last year's long struggle 
over this issue, I learned that many of my southern border colleagues 
represent districts that have similar experiences and stories about 
interrelated cross-border communities that otherwise would be injured 
by section 110.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe my bill comprehensively addresses the 
problematic issues that are found in section 110. It is critical that 
section 110 as it currently stands be amended in order to avoid 
unnecessary chaos at both the northern and southern land borders and 
sea ports and give INS the necessary time to implement in an effective 
and affordable manner the current automated system at all airports. An 
automated entry-exit system elsewhere must not be implemented without 
careful consideration of the many issues involved. The Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999 will provide us with the 
necessary time and information for making a reasoned decision on 
whether to go forward with such a system.

                          ____________________